Protecting Multi-level Residential Buildings By GERALD A. O ROURKE, CPP

Transcription

1 Residential High-rises and Apartment Complexes Part Two Protecting Multi-level Residential Buildings By GERALD A. O ROURKE, CPP Over the last several years there has been a rapid increase in successful law suits arising from security negligence in multi-level residential cooperative, condominium and commercial buildings. A key issue in security liability is the foreseeability of crime at a given location. If several tenants have been mugged recently in the elevator of a building or other types of violent crime committed at the premises, it is reasonable to assume that other similar crimes will occur in the future. If security is not increased under those circumstances, legal liability tends to increase. The crime rate of larger geographic areas is sometimes used in the determination of foreseeability of crime.. If the crime rate of an area, or even the entire city, has increased, then the foreseeability of future crimes at a specific location could be interpreted to be greater. Another key consideration in the determination of foreseeability is the precedent set by the level of security utilized at the location at during a prior time period. If a certain level of security is established at some point in time, then diminishing that security, or even varying it periodically, can have serious legal dangers. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs attorney will likely attempt to portray the reduction as solely a function of cost-saving measures on the part of the defendants, even if there were sound reasons behind the reduction at the time the decision was made. The third key consideration, which is determined largely by foreseeability and precedent in level of security at the location, is adequacy of security. Adequacy is the overall measure on which security negligence cases are usually judged. Most security professionals and lawyers agree the best way to determine adequacy, and at the same time protect the building s owners from lawsuits that

2 Premises Security and Liability: a Comprehensive Guide from the Experts question their decisions about adequacy, is through a survey by an independent professional security consultant or a trained crime prevention police officer who does not have a vested interest in their recommendations. Representatives of manufacturers of security equipment and guard service suppliers are not generally qualified to conduct these analysis, both in terms of training and experience, and in terms of giving unbiased recommendations. From a legal viewpoint, independent surveys by qualified professionals can be used in court to support the building management s security decisions in the event of a lawsuit. By the same token, the report is discoverable and management should consider having their attorney contact the consultant to contract for his/her services so that the results of the survey can be protected If appropriate. Payment must be made to the law firm and not to the building owners. A criminal possesses three key ingredients before, committing a crime: Desire, opportunity and ability. Management must target reduction of opportunity because by simply reducing the criminals opportunity, the probability of a crime occurring in the building is automatically reduced. The following check list is created to assist management in identifying crime opportunities in areas of concern. I MAIN ENTRANCE - LOBBY The main entrance and lobby are the first line of defense for the building. The entrance to the Kings Castle was a deterrent to an intruder because of the door construction, the draw bridge and the wide moat The entrance to a residential high-rise should be equally discouraging to an intruder. Buildings without door attendants: 1. Is the main entrance door lock adequate and free of defects? 2. Is the bolt 1/2 inch into the jamb? 3. Is the bolt covered by steel cover plate between door and jamb to prevent levering? 4. Are door and lobby windows free of obstruction? 5. Is the lobby lighting sufficient to deter and detect criminal activity? 6. Is the intercom system in working order? 7. Is the electronic lock release in working order?

3 8. Are tenant apartment numbers on intercom directory? 9. Is the lobby equipped with a concealed closed circuit T.V. connected to a VCR with time-lapse capability? 10. Is the camera and recorder activated by motion or other detector? 11. Is the lobby signed with appropriate copy, i.e.: NOTICE THIS IS A CRIME WATCH BUILDING - LOBBY ACTIVITY RECORDED XYZ COOP 12. Is a dummy camera displayed in case of tampering? 13. Is the mailroom equipped with a convex mirror? 14. Is the lobby fire door locked to prevent ingress to the well from the lobby? 15. Are lobby furnishings secured to prevent theft? 16. Is the lobby and other public area lighting secured from tampering? Buildings with Door Attendants: 1. Are door personnel uniformed? 2. Are they properly trained? 3. Do they have written instructions? (a) For fire (b) Building emergencies II PERIMETER PROTECTION The majority of illegal entries to multi-residential buildings occur through windows and doors. All windows and doors on the perimeter including basement, first floor, and top floor must be secured.

4 Premises Security and Liability: a Co mprehensive Guide from the Experts 1. Is exterior door hardware removed to prevent tampering? 2. Locks installed without exterior key ways? 3. Bolt covered by steel cover plate? 4. Are basement and first floor windows barred or locked? 5. Are exterior door hinges welded to prevent removal of pins? 6. Is security lighting efficient enough to deter and detect unauthorized entry? 7. Lights checked daily for operation prior to darkness? 8. Extra lighting at entry points and points of possible intrusion? 9. Are light controls secured to prevent tampering? 10. Is security lighting on automatic control? III ELEVATORS 1. Are security mirrors sufficient to observe occupants of the car? 2. Are light fixtures secured to prevent tampering? 3. Are cars equipped with intercom? 4. Are cars equipped with closed circuit T.V.? 5. Are cars signed with appropriate copy, i.e.; NOTICE ACTIVITY ON THIS CAR IS VIDEO AND AUDIO RECORDED FOR YOUR SAFETY XYZ COOP 1. Are cars programmed to stop at the lobby floor before going to or from the basement? 2. Is emergency stop button connected to alarm?

5 IV COMMON HALLS 1. Are halls sufficiently illuminated? 2. Are convex mirrors utilized to view turns and blind spots? 3. Are utility closets locked? 4. Are light fixtures secured to prevent tampering? V ROOF DOORS Numerous lawsuits have arisen as a result of undetected egress to the buildings roof. In some cases burglars have gained ingress to the building through the roof door after gaining access to the building from adjacent buildings. 1. Is the roof door equipped with an exit alarm? 2. Is the exit alarm connected to a annunciator? 3. Is external hardware removed to prevent tampering? (a) Exterior hinges welded? (b) Roof well window(s) secured and alarmed? VI BASEMENT Management must limit ingress to the basement to authorized personnel or shareholders/tenants. 1. Are elevators doors controlled by key to prevent unauthorized ingress? 2. Are doors which allow ingress to basement locked? 3. Is the laundry room door controlled? 4. Is there a panic button in laundry room? 5. Closed circuit T.V. with open intercom to door attendant? 6. Are basement windows properly secured? 7. Are utility closets properly secured?

6 Premises Security and Liability: a Comprehensive Guide from the Experts Management s primary objective in implementing a security plan/program is to create an environment in the building that will discourage an intruder. All of the foregoing strategies address the physical security controls for a building. Equally important is the continuing education of shareholders/tenants relative to their own security and the safety of their fellow tenants. This educational program should be accomplished through a newsletter or monthly bulletins. These publications must stress the building security policies procedures, rules and regulations. Emphasis must be placed on main entrance procedures particularly the intercom operation and "piggy backing. Tenants should be encouraged to form a security committee to monitor, inspect and recommend upgrading the security program if required. Management of the building is responsible for maintaining the physical security aspects of the plan to ensure that the original level of protection is maintained. It is the consensus of security professionals that defendants in premises liability suits often prevail even when it can be demonstrated that a genuine effort was made to protect tenants and their guests. It is important to show that a risk analysis and security survey of the building was conducted by a security professional and that various recommendations were implemented. How can management protect themselves in this litigious environment? Assign a competent shareholder or employee the responsibility of gathering and keeping records of security surveys, invoices for security equipment and repairs, incident reports and copies of security bulletins or newsletters. Hypothetical scenarios should be devised, for instance, a tenant is assaulted in the basement laundry room. Treat this concept as an actual lawsuit and arrange for an attorney to review your security file and program as if he were preparing a defense for your building. A legal audit could be a modest investment that may head off big trouble. Reference: Risk Analysis and Security Survey James Broder, CPP

7 Gerald A. O Rourke, CPP Strategic Controls, Inc. 244 Madison Avenue New York, New York (212) Gerald O Rourke is an Independent Security Management Consultant based in New York City. He has extensive experience conducting risk analysis and security surveys of high-rise multi-tenant residential cooperatives, condominiums and commercial buildings. Mr. O Rourke has conducted numerous seminars on the subject of Apartment House Security at Hunter College for the Council of New York Cooperatives. He is a member of the American Society for Industrial Security and the International Association of Professional Security Consultants. Mr. O Rourke has over 30 years experience, education and training as a Maryland State Trooper, Deputy U.S. Marshal, Security Director, Faculty Director, Instructor and Professional Security Consultant retained by Fortune 500 companies. Mr. O Rourke is Licensed by the New York State Education Department as a Security-Loss Prevention Instructor and is certified by the American Society for Industrial Security as a Certified Protection Professional. He has written several training programs for security personnel and has participated in the training of numerous proprietary guard forces. As President of Strategic Controls, Inc., Mr. O Rourke provides security-loss prevention audits and surveys, implements loss control programs, and presents security training seminars and awareness programs. Additionally, Mr. O Rourke provides consulting and security management services for firms who do not employ full-time security professionals, and provides forensic consulting for attorneys and the insurance industry.